I'll say it for...how many times have I said it? I'll say it for the fourth time: you should be entitled to believe and care about anything you wish without fear of reprisal. Anyone who thinks you should be set upon because of your beliefs fall under the one exception to this rule, that if you harm others then you have to be dealt with.

Where your actions harm others. For example the Mohammed cartoons ended up upsetting a lot of people, and they set out to hurt a lot of people. That's not to say they shouldn't have been published but that is an example of someone's actions unknowingly harming others. The question however is how far accountability should go.

Of course should you set out to harm someone you deserve to be mutilated. I could care less about the sensitivities of someone who does this, anyone who seeks to harm others should cop it ten times as bad.

The Mohammad cartoons did not "unknowingly" harm others. They were distributed in the Middle East with the sole intention of infuriating Muslims. The original cartoon in Jyllandsposten was not what set off the Islamic rioting.

I don't think that "upset others" equals "harm others". In case of the cartoons, I think the cartoons themselves did not do any harm to anyone. Even the people who felt "offended" were not harmed. But those, who were "offended" and felt free to start using violence against people who had nothing to do with those cartoons, just to express their "opinions", were harming others. Noone else. There is just no need to use violence because there is something drawn on a sheet of paper.

As I see it, "harming others" starts where human rights of others are violated and when property is destroyed or taken. I just fail to see how a drawing, written or spoken words would be able to do that.

But they do, and people are more than willing to retalliate forcibly because of them. Is it wrong? Yeah I'd say it's wrong, but by the same token people shouldn't try and harm others this way in the first place.

Is there a source for the Mohammed cartoons being a deliberate act to upset Muslims? I always understood that they were published in the Denmark papers and Islamic extremists used it as a reason for violence.

But they do, and people are more than willing to retalliate forcibly because of them. Is it wrong? Yeah I'd say it's wrong

It is wrong, unnecessary, and totally not giving anything to those who feel "offended".

Quote:

but by the same token people shouldn't try and harm others this way in the first place.

This is like saying "black" men shouldn't always try and hurt others with their colour of skin. So, no. The otherwise around. People shouldn't always assume it's always against them and their person, and getting physical because of some words, and that against someone totally else, who is not connected to the issue at all, shows how mentally weak and simply dumb the offended person is. This is like beating the **** out of black man A because black man B killed your dog.

Tolerance and understanding are importamt to understand that, for example, calling someone who is black 'boy', or even calling someone who is black 'black' is not directed as a racial slur or insult. For people who do go around trying to upset others this way however, well, that's why there are racism laws and a little something called provocation: if you said 'du-ma niou' to someone who's Vietnamese you can expect a smack in the mouth. Wrong? Yup, but that's what you can expect if you do that.

Ever played Sith Lords? There's a conversation with HK about his protocol programming where he says 'for example, on Praven Prime, the simple transferring of L'Xing syntax for friendship changes it's meaning - and implies that one's brood mate was actually impregnated by their own host.' Of course in your example one would hope any Vietnamese who heard you saying this would have the understanding the words weren't directed at them, if they even understood what ypu said: I take it the pronounciation is the same but...ah, you get the picture. I hope.

People should be allowed to say whatever they like, I believe it is the attitude of people that matters more than mere words. Franklin Roosevelt said it another way, that we have "freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear." Like all things how we choose to use that freedom can be harmful. Words can incite others to war: Osama Bin Laden did this when he rallied the Islamic world to Jihad, using the presence of American military bases on sovereign soil as one of the reasons. To have the attitude of waging war on the world, which is Bin Laden's intent, is wrong. For something you're probably familiar with drivers on the roads may do something stupid, say swerve in and out of traffic. Are they doing it because of inexperiance or doing it just to be an ass? Same with speech: one good example I can think of is suggesting the idea of donating blood to someone who is gay. If you didn't know then fair enough, but if you do know and say it because you know they are gay, that's hardly right either is it?

I think people should have the right to say what they want, Including saying things about religions. but that does not mean we have a duty to do so, we still have to decide for ourselves if it is right to say it.

Also, everyone else has the right not to listen. If you don't like what someone is saying about your God. Don't listen!

There's a difference between telling and forcing down throats an opinion.

Bin Laden might say whatever he feels like being expressive to his views. As long as he doesn't take action I'm totally fine with the fact that he talks.

[edit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``

For something you're probably familiar with drivers on the roads may do something stupid, say swerve in and out of traffic. Are they doing it because of inexperiance or doing it just to be an ass?

Where's the difference in the result that he swerves in and out of traffic?

Quote:

Same with speech: one good example I can think of is suggesting the idea of donating blood to someone who is gay. If you didn't know then fair enough, but if you do know and say it because you know they are gay, that's hardly right either is it?

Where's the difference in the result that he swerves in and out of traffic?

Intent. Is he deliberately trying to make things harder for other road users?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

What?

Gay people are not allowed to donate blood. Suggesting the idea to someone without knowing their sexual preference is one thing, but doing it with the knowledge that they are gay and making the comment because it would hopefully upset them is quite another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

Yes, but did his speech physically cause the sufferings of Sept. 11 or the act of flying planes into the WTC?

If you mean him taunting the families of the victims of September 11 then yes I think the videos he sends in are intended to cause fear, grief and anger. Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, one of the terrorists behind the Bali bombings, sought to upset everyone he possinly could as much as he possibly could. I won't repeat the things he's done, suffice to say he deliberately set out to cause distress and anger to everyone he could, far more so than Bin Laden.

Intent. Is he deliberately trying to make things harder for other road users?

And yet, I have in both cases a problem with a car "tingeling along", even more, the intentional wrong-driver is expected to do crap, which might be advantageous in avoiding a crash.

Quote:

Gay people are not allowed to donate blood. Suggesting the idea to someone without knowing their sexual preference is one thing, but doing it with the knowledge that they are gay and making the comment because it would hopefully upset them is quite another.

If this is the rule, where is the problem? We provide a hotline for our customers, every customer of us can get help there. Our customers can, if they want, make a contract with us, so they will pay a monthly amount instead of paying per call. They also get preferred help when they have contracts. Now everytime one of the customers without a contract calls, I'll have to tell him that this call will cost money and he will get an invoice if I will help him. Do you suggest I should not tell him that he's treated different to avoid that the customer gets upset (what actually happens on a pretty regular base)?

The problem isn't in not allowing homosexuals to donate blood, that I can understand. What I'm saying is suggesting to someone who is to donate blood, knowing full well thet are gay and making the comment because they are gay, and hoping they will get upset about it. It's a bit like Dagobah's comments on the Mohammed cartoons being used to outrage the Islamic people.

Ah. You stress the hoping part of it? (I mean there should be not problem in saying "Sorry, gays are not allowed to donate blood.") Where's the problem, except it being highly amoral?

Imagine someone hopes to upset/scare/annoy someone else by saying something, but someone doesn't get upset/scared/annoyed, and that in return offends the offender, who will now punch the other for not getting all upset about it.

However, this all wouldn't justify violence, not at all. The black man just isn't allowed to throw a punch at some racist's face for being called whatever it may be.

Well, Ray I am a African-American if someone called me a racist name, I'm going to kick some ass and take some names.
I really hate racist.
It is time for that crap to end now.
And for our society to get over this racist bulls**t, NOW.Racism cause the evil of Holocaust to happen. Our society must get over this prejudice now for another race fueled Holocaust might happen.

Yes, but that was not my point. The point is, you are not allowed to react like this towards verbal "offense". And by attacking the racist you put him in a position where he can say "Look what this guy has done to me!", and you will most probably cause other racist not only to attack verbally but physically, maybe your friend's daughter is being raped because you took too much offense from a stupid word.

Yes, but that was not my point. The point is, you are not allowed to react like this towards verbal "offense". And by attacking the racist you put him in a position where he can say "Look what this guy has done to me!", and you will most probably cause other racist not only to attack verbally but physically, maybe your friend's daughter is being raped because you took too much offense from a stupid word.

First of all don't think I'm trying to bait you into an argument, as Spider AL think I'm always doing when I post.

As for your point: I was brought up to reply to racist names like that with anger and violence.
So, I became very aggressive toward racist fools like those.
Being a pacifist just don't work with people with that much hate in them and flawed beliefs.
If I let them get away with it, by not putting them into their place.
Physical violence will be their next course of action.
That might get my ass killed in the next encounter with *******s like those type of people.

"I care, because I was rejected by PBS for the role of Mr. Rogers by producers who said my voice was liable to give young children narcolepsy, but I really know they denied me that role because I'm an atheist."

Atheists are apparently not only the least trusted (non)religious minority in the US, they're also the dullest. The rise of the neocon religious Right in the US makes me uneasy for a lot of reasons, but the plight of the atheists somehow lacks the flash of Gitmo or the Iraqi Conquest. Feel free to cut 'n' paste any relevant comments I've added to the various other discussions about religion in threads here or the KotOR forums.

Be considerate to others or I will bite your torso and give you a disease!

First of all, I'm not thinking you're trying to bait me into an argument, nor do I think Spider AL says things he hasn't been thinking about carefully before. I'm not really sure why exactly he says you might be a troll, although I'm almost certain it's because of your .. unconventional style of debating things in here, and maybe he says it because he'd like you to think about it. That he's said it, is none of my business, nonetheless. And after all I can think for myself, and noone has been attacked, personally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by windu6

As for your point: I was brought up to reply to racist names like that with anger and violence.

That's wrong. Anger and violence are most probably going to cause more of itself, and are a most unfortunate choice of "weapon".

Quote:

Being a pacifist just don't work with people with that much hate in them and flawed beliefs.

Being pacifist will more likely get others on your side than being "the same *******" as the racist is would do.

[edit]

Anyways, not being exposed to excessive racist offence makes me kind of unable to have real insight on the topic of racism. However, I had a couple of lessons in "faces of violence in the world", and what always helped alot was being "cool" rather than "uncool". ;

First of all, I'm not thinking you're trying to bait me into an argument, nor do I think Spider AL says things he hasn't been thinking about carefully before. I'm not really sure why exactly he says you might be a troll, although I'm almost certain it's because of your .. unconventional style of debating things in here, and maybe he says it because he'd like you to think about it. That he's said it, is none of my business, nonetheless. After all I can think for myself, and noone has been attacked, personally.

Cool !

I think Skinwalker going to end up editing our posts here, since we are talking about something else entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

Being pacifist will more likely get others on your side than being "the same *******" as the racist is would do.

You know in some of these situations in my experience and the experience of others, this seem to fail.
And those that I know end up being seriously injured and some of who I don't know the experience of or don't know, end up being dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

That's wrong. Anger and violence are most probably going to cause more of itself, and are a most unfortunate choice of "weapon".

That maybe true at first glance but the people who don't take this course of action end up being dead later in my observance of the 10:00 P.M. news.

I don't like violence personally but in some situations that threaten my life, I will use it gladly.

Ah, but he has. Rallied the Muslim world against the West, involved in September 11 and skiting about it. As I said there's nothing wrong with speech, it's how you use it.

There's also the possibility that Muslim extremists don't like the fact that the U.S. gives more foreign aid to Israel than any other country and not one loan we've given to Israel has been paid back (although there are a number of "black bag jobs" in South America that Israel carried out for us). There's also the fact that we used most countries there as pawns in during the Cold War and simply left them after they were torn apart by war. There's also the fact that we've stationed troops in many of their holy cities in Saudi Arabia in order to kiss the asses of the corrupt government in place there so that we can get their oil, even though Russia and Canada are thought to have the world's largest oil reserves beneath the miles of permafrost in both countries. Or maybe the fact that in Africa we back ruthless warlords instead of more qualified Muslim leaders just because they're aren't Islamic set them off. I dunno.

My point is: there are a lot better reasons for Islamic extremists to hate the Western world (and America in particular) than Osama bin Laden giving a speech. My point is also backed up by the fact that Islamic extremists have been around for quite some time (since before the time Osama bin Laden was being trained by the CIA to fight the Soviets), and have been killing people in many regions of the world.

In terms of freedom of speech, I believe that censorship is wrong just because someone might get upset, although I do draw a distinction between expressing one's opinion and being an ass. I also believe that if you insult someone who hates you, they'll be more likely to take it seriously than someone you're on good terms with.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

-H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite

Ah. You stress the hoping part of it? (I mean there should be not problem in saying "Sorry, gays are not allowed to donate blood.") Where's the problem, except it being highly amoral?

The problem lies in trying to upset others. Are people allowed or should people be allowed to torment and persecute, in this case, homosexuals or other minority groups? No, they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, even criminals, terrorists, rapists and pedophiles have rights. They don't deserve them but they do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmac7142

There's also the possibility that Muslim extremists don't like the fact that the U.S. gives more foreign aid to Israel than any other country and not one loan we've given to Israel has been paid back (although there are a number of "black bag jobs" in South America that Israel carried out for us).

There's many crimes to hold against America and the West. Governments and militaries the world over have lots to answer for, and terrorists in all honesty would be seen as more legitimate if their attacks were on these targets. What right do they have however to kill people who are in no way involved in the affairs of the government? None. They lose every shred of creditbility when they choose to attack civillian targets

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmac7142

In terms of freedom of speech, I believe that censorship is wrong just because someone might get upset, although I do draw a distinction between expressing one's opinion and being an ass.

Exactly, people should be free to say or view what they wish, anything they wish. But there are times, inciting racial hatred and declaring that women deserve to be raped are two, where the sons of bitches should be fried because they are actively participating in trying to bring about the view that, say, the Jews are vermin to be exterminated. Likewise for child pornography because, well, a child was sexually abused to make that product.

There's many crimes to hold against America and the West. Governments and militaries the world over have lots to answer for, and terrorists in all honesty would be seen as more legitimate if their attacks were on these targets. What right do they have however to kill people who are in no way involved in the affairs of the government? None. They lose every shred of creditbility when they choose to attack civillian targets

The U.S. has killed thousands of civilians as well because we didn't give a damn who died, so long as we could declare victory. Are you saying that the U.S. (and nearly every European country as well) has lost its credibility as well? Despite what the media and White House press releases say, civilian casualties are a part of war, hence my viewpoint of "**** the both of you, stop arguing about whose morals are superior and stop massacring innocent civilians for money and/or the aforementioned morals."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``

Exactly, people should be free to say or view what they wish, anything they wish. But there are times, inciting racial hatred and declaring that women deserve to be raped are two, where the sons of bitches should be fried because they are actively participating in trying to bring about the view that, say, the Jews are vermin to be exterminated. Likewise for child pornography because, well, a child was sexually abused to make that product.

Fair enough.

"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite

Are you saying that the U.S. (and nearly every European country as well) has lost its credibility as well?

Somewhat. At least they are willing to use diplomacy when practical. You'd be a fool to think there wasn't some political or military manuvering for them to get their own way, you can use Israel as an example of this, or Afghanistan to drive back the Soviets. It's still the best we have until someone comes along with some changes that make sense. Terrorists on the other hand seek to kill as many people as they can, the reason they have formally given when it all comes down to it is to destroy the West and force the world to their currupt view of Islam. When you strip away all the religious and idealogical claims they make this is what's left, straight from the horse's mouth.

The problem lies in trying to upset others. Are people allowed or should people be allowed to torment and persecute, in this case, homosexuals or other minority groups? No, they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, even criminals, terrorists, rapists and pedophiles have rights. They don't deserve them but they do. ...
[...]
... people should be free to say or view what they wish, anything they wish. But there are times, inciting racial hatred and declaring that women deserve to be raped are two, where the sons of bitches should be fried because they are actively participating in trying to bring about the view that, say, the Jews are vermin to be exterminated. Likewise for child pornography because, well, a child was sexually abused to make that product.

I agree. I've been thinking a bit about the discussion we had about what can be said and what not. I figured that I of course do not support what Bin Laden said, for instance. He, due to freedom of speech, has the right to say his things, as it seems to be his opinion. But I consider it to be kind of amoral to say things like this. Yes, everyone should be free to express whatever opinion he has, using any words he'd like to, but calling for violence against others (among other things you mentioned) hurts the dignity of others and as such has to be avoided, especially in public. It is simply amoral behaviour, which is, according to another thread, not nice.